United States v. Daniel Paniagua-Ramos

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the district court must select \a sensible procedure reasonably calculated to determine whether something untoward had occurred\ and then \even-handedly implement\ it
• noting that plain error might theoretically be found in cases of “glaring omission,” where, for example, “a trial court fails to instruct a criminal jury on a basic point like the government’s burden of proof or the presumption of the defendant’s innocence”
• declining \to second-guess the lower court's judgment as to what methodology was best calculated to get at the truth in this instance\
• “[A] trial court has an unflagging duty adequately to probe a nonfrivolous claim of jury taint_”
• allegation from defendant's sister that two jurors had been seen conversing with the prosecutor during trial
• “[Wjhile a trial court has an unflagging duty adequately to probe a nonfrivolous claim of jury taint, the court has wide discretion to determine the scope of the resulting inquiry and the mode and manner in which it will be conducted.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).